From: Eric Hughes <hughes@soda.berkeley.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 92 08:51:19 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Keystone
Message-ID: <9210221550.AA23915@soda.berkeley.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Re: adding D-H key exchange to PC software

gnu@cygnus.com writes:
>Given a working Unix implementation, it would be relatively easy to
>add to the terminal program, if source code for any decent terminal
>programs was available.

But source code is not available.  The trouble is that all the decent
terminal programs for PC's are shareware or commercial (or were
originally shareware and have become commercial).  I too would like to
know of any source-available PC terminal programs, but I suspect there
are none because of the prevailing shareware culture.


Re: getting an author to license D-H key exchange

The reason this will not happen is not the bootstrapping problem
(chicken/egg), but that there is no perceived value to an encrypted
link.  The sysop is already has access to everything on the dedicated
machine and may even have a policy of scanning all messages.  External
hackers can't really get in because shell access isn't really done
remotely.  The only ones you are protecting against are people with a
hard tap on the phone line itself.  For most people, this is not a
concern.

Since there's no perceived value and since all the software would
require license from RSADSI, it won't happen that way.


Re: using a protocol layer

avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au writes:
>Rather than rewrite the terminal progs, why not rewrite the BIOS level
>drivers and such ? (if its possible).

That's not possible either.  Most terminal programs write directly to
the hardware.  This is single-tasking, standardized hardware,
remember, and the original BIOS interface for the serial port was
totally unusable.  Some communications programs use FOSSIL drivers,
but many (if not most) terminal programs don't support it.  (FOSSIL is
a BIOS-level serial port interface description which could hooked into
or rewritten to support a protocol.)


Look, I wish all this stuff were in use.  Everyone should encrypt all
their communications links as a matter of policy.  (That includes
voice, and if you thought the PC terminal program bootstrapping was
difficult ...)  Let's move incrementally, though.  If we can get
people to at least encrypt all of their e-mail, that will be an
excellent start.

One incentive would be for the BBS operators to phase in a policy that
they will accept no e-mail which is _not_ encrypted.  Comments?

Eric